| | Bill Clinton says, These challenges cry out for American ideas and American innovation. When Barack Obama unleashes them, America will save lives, win new allies, open new markets, and create wonderful new jobs for our own people. How? Clinton doesn't tell us. These are simply grandiose promises with no specifics to back them up. Most important of all, Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are first strong at home. People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power. Again, glittering generalities. What does he mean by "strong"? No answer. Look at the example the Republicans have set.
In this decade, American workers have consistently given us rising productivity. That means, year after year, they work harder and produce more.
Now, what did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-fourth as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty, and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. If American workers had consistently given us rising productivity -- if they had been working harder and producing more -- then this would be reflected in rising real wages. In a free-market, the most productive workers receive the highest real wages, including managers and executives whose higher salaries reflect their contribution to productivity. If average real wages and salaries are lower, it is because aggregate productivity is lower.
As for increasing income inequality, why is that a desirable goal? Income equality is a premise that very few people ever bother to question. If people aren't equally productive, why should they receive equal incomes? In any case, one of the reasons for rising income inequality is the greater number of immigrants who are willing to work for lower wages, which are nevertheless higher than what they would have received in their home countries. Besides, it is the coercive labor legislation favored by the Democrats that has raised the wages of some workers at the expense of others, who are then forced into unemployment. Such policies have created the very income inequality for which the Democrats are now blaming the Republicans. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring health care costs and declining coverage. And whose fault is that? It is the fault of the government's involvement in health care and third-party payers, not of a truly free market in medicine. The Clintons want to add insult to injury by imposing "universal health care," a euphemism for socialized medicine. What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by multiple, multiple deployments? That's an easy criticism for the Democrats to make. Would it have been any different under their administration? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? I don't know what he means by "the assault on science." As to the "defense of torture," is he referring to water boarding? I've heard that it's very frightening and effective, but involves no physical injury. What about the war on unions and the unlimited favors for the well-connected? The assumption here is that unions raise real wages and improve workers' standard of living. Nothing could be further from the truth. By raising the cost of labor, unions reduce the number of workers that employers can afford to hire, which is to say that they cause unemployment for some workers by raising the money wages of other workers (those who belong to the union). In so doing, unions lower aggregate productivity, thereby reducing the average real wage. And what about Katrina and cronyism? Cronyism? I had to laugh at that! Look who's talking! Besides, FEMA is a government agency, which could scarcely have been expected to perform efficiently. This is not the fault of the Republicans. It is the fault of government, Republican or Democrat. One of the best ways of mitigating disasters is to allow price gouging by private companies seeking to profit off of the shortages created by the disaster. The high prices would attract profit-seeking suppliers. The increased supply would drive the prices down and provide victims of the disaster with much needed goods and services. The profit motive would serve to ameliorate the shortages much more quickly than a government agency like FEMA ever could. But price gouging in an emergency is something that Democrats as well as Republicans oppose, because they regard it as an attempt to profit off of other people's misfortune. Think about it: more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality, and weaken the economy; Not true. Tax cuts for the wealthy encourage investment and help to create new jobs, thereby strengthening the economy.
(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/30, 2:05pm)
|
|
